Terrorism: Good Strategy or Crime against humanity?

I disagree.

Most certainly, because I would want to directly harm as few innocent people as possible.
I would prefer to target infrastructure and "smoke them out" and force the people to force the hands of their government.
That would be ideal, but I know better than to hope for that ideal.
Any loss of life would be terribly unfortunate, but unfortunately necessary in all likelihood.
I wouldn't hate the people of the country.

As much as possible, absolutely.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately Fraggle, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. Hiroshima was one of several bases where the ENTIRE japanese popoulation was going to be trained to be suicide defenders. Not just the men but the women and children as well. Nagasaki was a major communications site, the hiding place of several generals, a Zero factory and the beginnings of a nuclear pile experiment. While surely less powerful weaponry could have gotten the job done of destroying these facilities, we needed more. Basically we used overwhelming force against a military target to dishearten the military and civiliian population. In a way this could be terrorism, but the primary target was military in nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As a reason for choosing those two cities, that's all BS invented after the fact - and ludicrously irrelevant, if you stop and think a minute: the civilians were being trained for suicide, therefore you kill them? The Japanese were supposed to be getting ready to begin to maybe build a small non-bomb reacting pile somehow for some reason, therefore you drop an A-bomb on the whole city?

The only extenuating circumstance for Hiroshima and - worse - Nagasaki, was that the US was in fact at war, and hadn't started that war exactly. If that is enough to justify truly horrific and large-scale terrorism, then justification may be possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.